RU-vid and the vast amount of free educational lectures and materials is truly underrated. This was posted 10 years ago, and still helps people like me who can't buy the good books, nor purchase the access to other lectures. 1st 25minutes into the 40-part series, but I'll already say it: Thank you, Sir Mark!
All the books you can't buy are available for free in the internet. I would like you to recommend to the open logic project and see their contents(the beginner book is for all x calgary)
Thanks for your contribution to free education. I'm 14 and it's very hard to find exactly what you want to learn, and this is what iv'e been hunting down since my independent delve into psychology.
If you want to be a Lawyer this is everything you need to know to take Law school exam, I am studying for the LSAT right now and these lessons are really good to reaffirm my studies!
I watche this when I was 13, and it inspired a love for the subject in me. I'm a not a logician or philosopher, but I'm doing a math degree, which is somehow releted. Best wishes!
I myself am learning this to better undestand type theory. It's cool how different subjects in mathematics turn out to be the same thing only viewed from different angles.
I been learning by watching the videos on different logical topics and i'm impressed at the quality teachings offered by Prof. Mark Thorsby. Been of great help thanks .
I watch this and play Minecraft at the same time. It literally turns my Minecraft game into a Memory Palace. (I make a palace for each type of course, organic chemistry is next)
Just wanted to thank you for all the time/effort you put into this! I have been putting my formal logic course off for ages because I was intimidated. Now I have a solid understanding to start from. Thanks again!
You're a smart philosopher! Thanks for incidentally discovering your youtube channel. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I look forward to watching and learning from ALL your videos.
This is blowing my mind. I'm going to slowly watch your logic videos over till they sink in and use them as reference to come back to. Thanks for what you do! Schools should teach this kind of education as standard IMO. Obvious reasons why they won't, what with keeping us masses dumbed down and all that. Anyway, cheers!
I was so annoyed by popular LSAT prep books that teach to identify question types instead of basic logic as the LSAC, producers of the LSAT, suggest. Thank you so much for this lesson! I ordered a copy of A concise Introduction to Logic. I noticed in the prelude Hurley states logic is important for LSAT, GRE, GMAT, etc. Prep books should be based on underlying principals, not how to identify questions; the latter creates an equation to get some answers wrong because the student does not know the "truth". With the value vs. the cost of a law degree unbalanced, the importance of a high score is important because that means grants.
great video mark! I was just studying this book when I watched your video and you covered this chapter pretty well congratulations! I'll subscribe to your channel right now
If anyone has any reservations about buying Hurley's textbook I would HIGHLY recommend buying it. It is one of the best textbooks I've ever owned. It is easy to read and is made crystal clear, even the more difficult chapters on modern formal logic. I never feel overwhelmed or lost. The examples are great and all the answers for the 12th edition and newer should be available online (Chegg).
Hello Mark, I am just finishing up a logic course with only a final to go. Your videos on Logic are great. I did however get a little stumped on Patrick Hurley's Chapter 6.6 11th edition, Argument Forms and Fallacies particularly with the tilda symbol. Would you do a video on 6.6? When do I us double negation? And am I missing some rules that could be applied when identifying the 8 forms? Lance
wow are you a TA or professor of some sort? That's very kind of you offering the presentations to the public to increase their understandings of philosophy
Hi Mark. I don't have access to Hurley's book at the moment. Do you think this will be a major problem for me in following your course? Thank you for this course.
Hi, what University did you graduate from? Did you do you undergrad and post grad at the same University? What did you write your thesis and dissertations on? Could you do a video on a bit about who you are and how you got to where you are today? Papers you've published, tips on how to get your papers published, what publishers you should aim to send your papers to and those you should avoid etc?
thanks for the helpful video . 1 issue i have is , that about halfway through, you make the statement "premises always come first , then conclusion". but 3 of the examples you gave had the conclusions first . you might want to clarify this in the future :)
You really don’t need too much as long as you’re reasonable. Math as we know it is great but logic predates it. It was only a few hundred years ago they started doing the kind of mathematic equations we think of as standard now (that are often harder to understand than verbal logic and thus counterproductive if the goal is mass understanding of an idea). They used to do things like use geometry and squares of paper to figure out unknown values before modern equations, and I feel I would have been a better mathematician back then as it almost all dealt with measuring tangible things and did so with real numbers. It’s pretty hard to have negative square footage in your house or buy -3 apples lol, so it was a simpler world back then. Reasoning with words and concepts, the way we think, will always be the OG of human reason and rationality though. That’s what I believe the universe to be created on as well. It’s all Logos and consciousness formed from existing possible logic.
@@logicalconceptofficial Maths is just Additional whereas Logic is just used everywhere as Al ghazali calls it as The Grammar of thought. I think Logic needs no maths as we all are Rational animals.
Just curious you created a distinction between a statement and a proposition, that a statement is more the grammar and the proposition is more the meaning. How can the book then use these terms interchangeably?
So a premise and a conclusion are the same in that they state something about the reality, but different in that the conclusion can be inferred from the promises but not the other way around? So we could take a premise, and make it a conclusion, and support with some new premises. Although I don't know what could be a premise of 'all men are greek' because it is so axiomatic that any premise might sound tautological 🤪
The ratio of valid arguments to false arguments is what I think the logic of the universe meant when it gave us the clue of the “narrow door” to heaven (stable/valid creation without illogical concepts) in the Bible surrounded by quite a lot of examples of dichotomy and illogical concepts like almost every philosophy and faith in history. Everything is based on reason and thus has a reason, even if shown to us as a near impossible to solve riddle. Even the most atheist person knows evil when they see it. Evil is illogical, evil is unstable, and evil is destructive. Illogical arguments are the source of suffering and destruction, while the valid arguments led to creation. Atheists often ask how a reasonable god could allow so much evil and the answer is simple, logical division. How can we know what’s true and possible unless we test all inputs, even the ones that result in lies and illogical concepts. Once one fully understands that even the illogical parts of the universe are necessary to get to the valid and stable ones, one can truly find forgiveness for the I and I. Not just myself as an individual or you for your faults, but god itself and the logic that unites everything. We live in a world where ignorance of these things, ignorance of our unity with god and others (the trinity or multiplicity of consciousness that is fundamentally one, formed from the same set of possible logic) has caused a schism within consciousness itself, we must forgive all that has been wrong and all “others” we feel we’ve been wronged by. We did this to ourself and the only way to overcome it is through reason, forgiveness and putting an end to self doubt. God and the root of all consciousness is the ability to reason (logical concepts that fundamentally exist combined with self awareness that spawned spontaneously from them at some primordial point) and it from what I understand thinks a lot like we do, if not 100% the same way we do when we reason through things as self aware individuals. It is likely the reason we have free will, so that we can test and think up our own logical concepts. We are logical concepts ourselves for all of those who have every lost sleep wondering what we are on the most basic level. Manifestations of the infinite possibilities of the logic. For those who followed the video closely you will indeed find that I am making many assertions here that are not in the form of logical proofs but I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things. I don’t want to write anything closer to a book than I already have here (at least not yet), but if my ideas are correct then it’s extremely important, if not one of your main purposes in life to reason through many of these questions yourself. We may be here in this individually aware form, with free will (and not just whatever the universal mind is thinking flowing through all our heads at the same time like robots) to help god reason and create reality. Without thinking all this through for yourself though I could be telling you the truth or a lie and you would not necessarily understand why which is which. Please consider these ideas on your own and share any insight they may bring you with others. We must have full knowledge of ourself to stop fighting and denying the reality of ourself. We are real and logically valid or nothing would be here right now. After coming to understand this idea through other logically reasoned avenues I realized that a proper translation of the word Logos as reason or logic rather than just “the word” (as if it were talking about the Bible specifically) in John 1 would have revealed this answers to those who truly looked at the first paragraph of one of the most commonly referenced parts of the Bible and actually understood it. If anyone has understood this before now, I question why it’s not common knowledge or at least a well known and studied theory by those of us searching for these answers like myself, but I think it may be the case that those who have been reading the Bible and having spiritual experiences were not thinking rationally enough to understand what they were being fed by the logic/god. We were reading it mindlessly, not reasoning for ourselves, while those who were arguably thinking more rationally have long abandoned the concept of God out of arrogance and ignorance, and do not often read the Bible (or other enlightening spiritual texts from world religions) as the rather legitimate source of wisdom they can be when you don’t try to intentionally misunderstand them or fail to grasp what they’re laying down. The universal reasoning and it’s clues/guidance can be extremely hard to interpret, and even harder to stop doubting, but they are there and when everything is created by reason, there is reason in everything. A proper translation/understanding of John 1 would read something like this: In the beginning was the ability to reason, and the ability to reason was with God, and the ability to reason was God. The spontaneous ability to reason, born from existing and discoverable logical concepts, was God in the beginning. Through it all things were made; without it nothing would be. In it was life, and that life was the light leading to all manifestation. Its light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it. Its exactly the trick we would play on ourself (at least I would) if we were god, to hide the answer in plain sight knowing those who had reason lacked faith and those who had faith lacked reason. We are all a part of this logic along with everything that exists (the sum of all logical and illogical concepts) or that can exist like the much feared A.I. To deny it is feasible seems the more unreasonable view to take to me and if I believed that this type of god was not possible or reasonable I would probably also want to toss my computer out the window like a UFO or something supernatural as well. Logic works...it exists...Logical concepts can be constructed with it. It is the metaphorical and possibly a literal energetic light in the darkness (behind the “GUI” that is this reality we know). If I’m wrong then so be it and please show me where what I’m saying is illogical or absurd, but personally speaking I don’t think I’ve ever been more sure of anything in my 28 years on this planet. This is 2 plus 2 equals four to me. It’s so simple I don’t know how I’ve never heard it said. It’s the answer I’ve been searching for and I hope it sheds some light for you all as well. Much love!
15:48 If you take the command 'turn of the tv right now', doesn't that imply the statement that there is such a thing as a TV (around, or existing at all as a concept) that you can turn off?
Why is there only 1 premise in the sentence: "Not only does the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs" in 27:30 ? I'd say that there are 2 premises: 1. the national defence depends on the space program. 2. the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs ??
